1 / 10

NSAC Report

NSAC Report. Donald Geesaman Argonne National Laboratory Chair, US Department of Energy/National Science Foundation Nuclear Science Advisory Committee NuPECC Meeting 14 March 2014. What has happened since June 2013.

loan
Download Presentation

NSAC Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NSAC Report Donald Geesaman Argonne National Laboratory Chair, US Department of Energy/National Science Foundation Nuclear Science Advisory Committee NuPECC Meeting 14 March 2014

  2. What has happened since June 2013 • I apologize for missing the Krakow NuPECC Meeting due to a family emergency. • February 2013: President’s budget request follows Tribble committee modest growth scenario. The future of the request was highly uncertain. • Summer 2013: DOE comparative review of all grants • October: U.S. government shuts down in battle over budget and debt ceiling. • Dec – Jan: Budget agreement gives essentially president’s budget for 2014. • March 2014: FY15 Presdient’s budget request continues to look good for DOE Nuclear Physics • FRIB groundbreaking on Monday, March 17

  3. Nuclear Physics 519.9 569.1 593.6

  4. From the Acting Director of Office of Science’s slides on FY15 Presidents Budget Request

  5. At least two hitches • Congress required, starting in 2014, that DOE must allocate all funding for multi-year grants under $1M in the first year. Previous practice was to allocate funding year by year. • This was made more complicated by the new applications as a result of the compartive review. • Cost to the program in 2014 is about $15M • NSF budget likely nearly flat.

  6. The 2013 NP Comparative Research Review (Hallman) Slides from Dec 18, 2014 NSAC meeting • Beginning in mid-2012, in the interest of stewarding a program of nuclear science of the highest quality and impact, NP began to discuss and socialize plans for a comparative review of the research efforts it supports at Laboratories and Universities in the subfields of Heavy Ions, Medium Energy, Nuclear Structure and Nuclear Astrophysics, Nuclear Theory, and Fundamental Symmetries. The last time a similar exercise was undertaken was in 1994 (Dr. Peter, Paul Chair). • The goal of the comparative panel reviews of scientific research subfields in the NP Physics Research Division was to obtain independent, expert, peer review comparative evaluations of the competitiveness of supported research activities as part of NP’s continuing effort to ensure the science it supports is of the highest merit, quality, and impact. The outcome provided input essential to NP’s overarching goal of sustaining the most vibrant, high quality portfolio of nuclear science possible within available resources, consistent with program balance and with the strategic vision for US nuclear science developed in partnership with the research community and other stakeholders.

  7. Future Outlook (Hallman) As a general conclusion, NP finds that the review was successful and informative and accomplished its goal in terms of providing a comparative assessment of the competitiveness of NP supported research efforts within each subfield. The main substantive concerns expressed were: More timely/complete information would be helpful in general More information on the intended use of the review would be beneficial This type of review is a major undertaking, requiring very significant effort both by the research community and NP While this process was a sufficiently major exercise that it will not be repeated on a frequent basis, it was of sufficient value that NP expects it will likely repeat this exercise with some appropriate periodicity. Beyond the 2014 competitive review, NP plans to return to its standard processes for renewals and continuations through the end of the decade.

  8. Consequences • Grants in the bottom 25% were given one year and then the existing grants are terminated in 2014. This corresponds to <10% of research funding. • Each of these research groups must submit new proposals in 2014 which will be judged in competition with all other new proposals.

  9. Current NSAC Activities • Charge to review the NNSA program to accelerate domestic production of Mo-99. Susan Seestrom, Chair. April 30, 2014 deadline • Charge to develop strategy forneutrino-less double beta decay program to explore the inverted hierarchy.. Robert McKeown, Chair. April 30, 2014 deadline. This is not a down-select panel to choose experiments to go forward. • Charge to assess the workforce development needs in Office of Science research disciplines. JoilieCizewski, Chair. June 30, 2104 deadline • New charges expected at April 24-25, 2014 NSAC meeting • Charge to reform the NSAC Isotopes Subcommittee to advise NP about the Isotope Development for Research and Applications Program. • Charge for a new Long Range Plan for Nuclear Science.

  10. Summary • Last Summer I said, “My crystal ball indicates a bright future, but it may be a bumpy flight getting there.” • Budgets are following path to run ATLAS, JLAB, NSCL, RHIC and build FRIB but research is very tight. • A new Long Range Plan will allow the community to survey the research opportunities and propose their preferred path for the future.

More Related